Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Founded in 1999.

Discussions on all aspects of the Spanish Civil War including the Condor Legion, the Germans fighting for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

14 posts
• Page 1 of 1

Kai G.

Member

Posts: 4

Joined: 09 Sep 2006 02:27

Location: Berlin

Postby Kai G. » 17 Sep 2006 13:15

Due to a discussion on another board on that topic, I made some research, which I would like to discuss here.

Guernica in Fire
The Destrcution of Guernica by the Legion Condor from a Strategic Point of View

Introduction
1 – the Myth Getting Started
2 – the Actual Planning
3 – the Actual Results
4 – the Terror-bombings in the Spanish Civil War from German Perspective
Conclusion
Notes (including sources and literature)

In 1936, the tensions between the conservative forces including the fascists and the left Popular Front including the communists were serious. With the latter gaining the majority in the parliament on February 16 1936, the tensions grew even bigger. Many conservative militaries of all ranks were openly regarding the legitimate state as dead, just like many other. After a period of strikes, terror and riots, the military finally revolted causing the Spanish Civil War. These Nationalists were massively supported by Italy and a bit by Germany (1), while the Republicans were supported by the Soviet Union massively and voluntaries from many countries including Germany (2). All of them were sending auxiliary forces. Although the Nazi-German contribution, the Legion Condor, was rather small in comparison (3), it became not only decisive but also most famous.
On April 26 1937, the air arm of the Legion Condor bombed the Basque city of Guernica. The city was brought to ruins, never before in Europe a city was destroyed like that from the air. It felt like the beginning of a new age, an age of air power dominating the wars, capable of bombing anyone into submission. (4)

1 – the Myth Getting Started

The Basques, being one of the few major forces opposing Franco not being communist or close it, enjoyed the sympathy of the western world, especially that of the USA. Their representatives found open arms when they met the press and told about the attack on their cultural center, that killed innumerable people and deliberately left out the factory outside the city producing war material. (5) The given body count of 1654 dead and 889 wounded people can still be found in many publications on the topic. German publications sometimes translate ‘casualties’ with ‘Tote’ (dead people), which makes the bombing looking even more brute. More horror stories of fighters chasing fleeing people or deliberately aiming for priests were published and Franco saw himself forced to counter the international outrage with his own propaganda, claiming the Basques themselves would have destroyed Guernica by fire (6).
Hitler, perfectly aware of the fear inflicted by the attack, used that fear of his air force during the Munich Agreements 1938 and later on (7). And after WWII nobody ever questioned the Germans being not only capable but willing of executing such a terror attack. Likewise, Picasso’s most famous painting “Guernica”, made with a clear agenda, further strengthened the notion of an assault on civilians.
So the ‘Myth’ of a German terror raid aiming for the “demoralization of the civil population” while “Guernica was not a military objective”(8) arose quickly and it is alive up to this very day (9). Often the bombing is labeled a cruel test run, made for the evaluation of terror attacks, their means and results. This is a popular view, although only a great overstressing and extensive construing of a Göring comment at the IMT almost ten years later (10). But the records of Wolfram von Richthofen, Oberstleutnant and Chief of Staff in 1937, his diary and the reports of the Legion Condor are openly available for everyone. The problem was, that they were not available before the 70ties. Books written before this time, such as Hugh Thomas (The Spanish Civil War, London 1961 e.g.), are therefore based on a very deficient base of sources, just like books basing on them.

2 – the Actual Planning

The Legion Condor was under direct command of General Franco, even despite Italian tries of interfering in this direct contact, which shows the value of this relationship to Franco (11). While Richthofen planned the air strike, the order came from Spanish Command (12)
Since the Legion Condor had no mission on preserving cultural heritage, there was no dedicated cultural historian with Richthofen and he was absolutely unaware of the cultural importance of Guernica to the Basques. It is not even to prove that he knew about the Basque parliament sitting there, actually it is rather unlikely seeing his tourist-like remarks on Guernica, when he got there. He even referred to the capitalist Basques as “die Roten” (Reds, Communists) (13)
But what Richthofen knew was the strategic importance of the city. He was a flying ace of WWI and enjoyed the reputation of a brilliant strategist, became the youngest Feldmarschall (Field Marshall) of the Wehrmacht, but he was known for his ruthlessness as well. The war was running badly for the Basques, only one decisive blow against their retreating forces and the Nationalists could advance to Bilbao, ending the war in the North. Richthofen planned this strike to be an air attack against the Renteria-suburb of Gernica with it’s roads and bridge. This city guarded the central and only road of retreat for the Basques east of Bilbao and 25 battalions were heading for Guernica or were already in position there, like the 18th Loyalists’. (14)
A precision dive bombing strike against the bridge was possible, but Richthofen knew all to well, how difficult a bridge was to hit and how fast a bridge could be set up again, especially when the city provides the necessary infrastructure. So the plan was to destroy not only the bridge, but also the streets and buildings around it, hoping the ruins would impede any movement of heavy arms. Actually, the bridge was not even the primary target (see below; 16) This is why an air strike with the level-bombers of the K/88 and VB/88, not dive bombers, was imperative. So two He111, one Do17 and 18 Ju52 plus three Italian SM79 were assigned for the mission. For fulfilling this task, the standard load-out of medium explosive bombs (250kg), light explosive bombs (50kg) and incendiaries (1kg) was ordered. The use of incendiaries may sound strange at first since a stone bridge was attacked. First, it should be stressed again, the bridge was not the sole target, moreover it was usual to drop incendiaries on infrastructure targets. There was a considerable psychological impact and, even more important, destroyed vehicles and the fire itself would impede any advance or repair. The aircrafts also flew in in small waves, hence there was no carpet bombing of the whole city, neither desired nor carried out. The dropped tonnage of bombs did not exceed the usual load-out weight of attacks against other bridges, actually it was rather low. The Legion dropped 57to on the bridge of Flix on August 5 1938 e.g. as opposed to 22to on April 26 (15).

This was the order as noted by Richthofen on April 26:
“Setzen sofort ein: A/88 und J/88 auf Straßenjagd im Raum Marquina-Guernica-Guerriciaz. K/88 (nach Rückkher von Guerriciaz), VB/88 und Italiener auf Straße und Brücke (einschließlich Vorstadt) [sic!] hart ostwärts Guernica. Dort muß zugemacht werden, soll endlich ein Erfolg gegen Personal und Material des Gegners herausspringen. Vigon sagt zu, seine Truppen so vorzurücken, dass alle Straßen südlich Guernica gesperrt sind. Gelingt das, haben wir den Gegner um Marquina im Sack.“ (16)
[Starting at once: A/88 and J/88 for free fighter bomber mission on the streets near Marquina-Guernica-Guerriciaz. K/88 (after Returning from Guerriciaz), VB/88 and Italians for the streets and the bridge (including suburb) east of Guernica. There we have to close the traffic, if we finally want a decision against personal and material of the enemy. Vigon agrees to move his troops for blocking all streets south of Guernica. If this succeeds, we will have trapped the enemy around Marquina].
The official report of Legion Condor to Germany on April 26, which was top secret since Germany publicly prohibited any German citizen to fight in Spain, confirms this (17)

It is clear, that Richthofen not only planned to destroy the road of retreat, but also wanted to disrupt the enemy retreat as much as possible by the use of fighters, hunting down all movements on the streets. Indeed, fighters were to continue this mission and concentrated on Guernica on April 27, one day after the bombardment. They were shot by ground troops. Additionally some Bf109 had downed two interceptors (18).

Although the civil population was no concern of the Legion’s planning, thus endangered conscienceless, no piece of evidence reveals an aiming on purpose. H. Asmus remembered the day of the mission briefing, when everybody noticed how dangerous for Guernica the bombardment could be: “this was war, and nobody stopped to say >Wait a minute, there is town near that bridge.< Quite simply, the question of the proximity of Guernica did not come into our calculations” (19). The Italian bombers meanwhile were instructed to take care of not hitting Guernica (20). Also no concern was the factory outside the city, since Guernica should fall in Nationalists hands soon anyway.

3 – the Actual Results

The result was two edged: one the one hand, a vital target, the bridge was not hit. High Command was disappointed and asked for reasons, which were found in the insufficient aiming devices of the rather poorly modified Ju52-3m g3e ‘Behelfsbomber’ (makeshift solution bomber) (21). Their GV219 D bombsights were not appropriate to hit a target like a bridge in high level flight. So better bombsights were demanded and an even greater emphasis on hitting the target was put on. (22). The massive smoke also had caused many bombs to miss their destination and detonating in Guernica and destroying large parts of it. On April 28 Richthofen was informed about this, but he learned only later (see below) why (23).

On the other hand, the attack as a whole was successful, nothing could move in Guernica or Renteria for more than 24 hours and after that, one could hardly pass. Republican forces were trapped for a while. The Basque retreat came to a hold, Guernica – a strategically possible center point of Basque resistance – was given up without defending it. Richthofen only complained about the low speed of the Nationalist battalions in pursuit (24). Oberst Erwin Jaenecke reported later on May 18 1937: “Guernica [ist] ganz einwandfrei von den Italienern und am letzten Tage auch noch durch deutsche auf die Brücke und Straßenknotenpunkt bestimmte Bomben zerstört worden und, da in der Stadt im Gegensatz zum übrigen Spanien zum Häuserbau viel Holz verwendet wurde, in Flammen aufgegangen. Die Bewohner waren geflüchtet und konnten nicht löschen. Der heilige Baum, das Nationalheiligtum der Basken, ist unzerstört geblieben. An und für sich war Guernica ein voller Erfolg für die Luftwaffe. Die einzige Rückzugsstraße der ganzen roten Küste war durch den Brand und 2m hohen Schutt in den Straßen völlig versperrt.“ (25)
[Guernica has been destroyed by the bombs dropped by Italian and by Germans on the last day, aiming for the bridge and traffic junction, and, since the houses were made of wood for a part unlike the rest of the houses in Spain, it went up in flames. The inhabitants fled and did not attempt to put the fire out. The Holy Tree, the national sanctuary of the Basques, has not been hit. Actually, Guernica was a full success for the German Air Force. The only road of retreat of the communist coast was totally blocked by fire and debris, 2m high.”]
Later evaluations of the Luftwaffe confirmed this effect of the bombing (26). Something Richthofen had noticed as well as Jaenecke was the population of Guernica not even attempting to fight the fire as they fled. Also no effort to clean up the city was made after the attacks. He assumed propaganda reasons.

Another result was the death toll, although the true number might never be found out, more recent studies think the number given by the Basque officials is inflated (27).
However, the living quarters were not directly targeted. A heavy psychological impact, further boosted by propaganda, press stories and even German foreign policy under Hitler’s regime, is undeniable though.

The British Government with respect to the outrage caused by the press demanded an investigation by an international commission. Of course, nobody in the German government had any interest in such an investigation, but as a simple denial would look like an admission of guilt, the German foreign ministry answered differently. It unofficially agreed to an investigation if other ‘incidents’ of the Spanish Civil War would be investigated, too. The British government now officially agreed (not unofficially!) in order to out pressure on the matter, but Italy, France and the Soviet Union were very reluctant for their own involvements (28). So Britain stood very much alone and did not pursue any further actions, since another ‘incident’ – the continued illegal bombing of German control ships by republican planes and their following retaliation (29) – was more up to date.

4 – the Terror-bombings in the Spanish Civil War from German Perspective

To analyze the Guernica bombing and the claim, it would have been a terror attack according to the theories of Douhet (30), it is helpful to see how the Luftwaffe actually evaluated the use of these theories and the execution of them in the Spanish Civil War.
Strategic Bombing had not been neglected, under certain circumstances attacks on enemy resources were considered a viable way of winning the war. But attacks purely aimed on enemy civil population, it’s moral and habitations were generally prohibited (“Der Angriff auf Städte zum Zwecke des Terrors gegen die Zivilbevölkerung ist grundsätzlich abzulehnen“) from 1935 on (31), i.e. before the Spanish Civil War.
The Italian bombings of Barcelona e.g. had strengthened the will of the population to fight on as the German Ambassador noted . Therefore he confirmed with a practical example, what the Luftwaffe had thought in theory before (32). Fregattenkapitän Helmuth Heye from the Seekriegsleitung (Naval High Command) also noted this counterproductive effect, when civilian losses were high and stated that terror attacks are no means of winning a war for that reason (33).
Of course the Luftwaffe was not reluctant to bomb civilians for purely humanitarian reason, the leaders simply saw no reason to do so because they expected failure. Nevertheless, it was taken note of the effect of continued bombing of the working class resulting in lower morale and consequently resulting in less production. This was the only aspect of terror bombing party measured useful by the German Air Force after the experiences in Spain (34).

Conclusion

The attack on Renteria near Guernica was conducted with absolute ruthlessness, which is not exactly surprising. Nonetheless, there is nothing that proves an attack on the civilian population for the purpose of terror. This would not only contradict the doctrine of the German Air Force, there is also not a single piece of solid evidence indicating that terror was a desired effect, yet alone the most important. On the contrary, the planning of Richthofen was concise and logical aiming for the destruction of the bridge, streets and suburb as a possible road of retreat for the beaten Basque army, which moved exactly to Guernica. The destruction of Renteria was necessary, the destruction of parts of Guernica tragic.
The Myth of Guernica was employed and exploited by both victims and actor fors various political causes soon after, while hardly anyone looked at the factual reports and records, and it is still alive for that very reason.
“The Nationalists won territory, but the enemy had won the war of propaganda with Guernica” (35)

A very detailed analysis of the raid on Guernica. Of course, most historians, including H Thomas in his more recent additions also state that the attack on Guernica was not a deliberate attack on civilians, but an attempt to cut off Republican troops from crossing the river. Thomas does wonder why JU87s were not used to attack the bridge, which were available and proven to be extremely accurate and used later in WW2 by the Germans as flying artillery. He also wonders why so many incendiary bombs were used. Of course, by bombing the city next to the bridge, civilians will block all the routes in panic, thus blocking the roads for the troops...classic Blitzkreig doctrine to be used to good effect in Poland and France a few years later.

I for one, would never use Guernica as an example of terror raids on Republican cities. There are other better examples, such as the bombing of Madrid.

These Nationalists were massively supported by Italy and a bit by Germany

I think you tend to down play the German numbers in Spain. They provided all in all c.17,000 troops as opposed to c 75,000 Italians. However, they provided c 600 aircraft (Alpert states 840), 200 tanks and 1,000 artillery pieces, not to mention the military skill that went with them. (Thomas, pp 944). Russia on the other hand did provide a mass of equipment..c 1,000 aircraft, 900 tanks and 1,500 artillery pieces, but only 2 - 3,000 men

I am aware that Thomas has revised his book for the new material and that many historians nowadays would not try to construct a terror attack, that has not happened. However, there is the popular view seeing a terror attack, there are historians (deliberately?) falsifying sources in order to support their notion. Trenkner has been named in note 24, Vinas is another example (cf. Abendroth, H.H.: Guernica, in: MGM 41 (1987), EN 66 for that case).

Moreover, this forum lists Guernica as a warcrime and the linked thread rather points to the consensus of "Obdicut" stating "There is every indication that this attack was not on any military target, but against the population of the town as a whole", giving a false impression about the character of the attack.

The use of incendiary bombs and level bombers has been explained, moreover there was only ONE Ju87A0, if any, in Spain and the Hs123 could not load more than 50kg-bombs. Dive bombers were by no means accurate 'wonder-weapons' for hitting bridges. Actually all missions flown by Ju87 in August 1938 missed their bridge targets. One does not wonder, why Richthofen rather preferred to level a suburb.

The fleeing population was not a factor at all in any planning, the first time I heart about that was when I watched the US-Propaganda film "Divide and Conquer" by Frank Capra (1943)... if you have other sources (read: sources, i.e. documents from that time, not modern literature), please show them.

Kai G. wrote:I am aware that Thomas has revised his book for the new material and that many historians nowadays would not try to construct a terror attack, that has not happened. However, there is the popular view seeing a terror attack, there are historians (deliberately?) falsifying sources in order to support their notion. Trenkner has been named in note 24, Vinas is another example (cf. Abendroth, H.H.: Guernica, in: MGM 41 (1987), EN 66 for that case).

Historians get things wrong. To say that they deliberately get things wrong puts them into the same category as David Irving et al. A serious accusation which you really do need to prove.

Kai G. wrote:Moreover, this forum lists Guernica as a warcrime and the linked thread rather points to the consensus of "Obdicut" stating "There is every indication that this attack was not on any military target, but against the population of the town as a whole", giving a false impression about the character of the attack.

That is why we have a forum here. You are quite entitled to state your case against Obdicut providing, as I no doubt you will, you provide the evidence. We have similar arguments here regarding the bombing of Dresden and the German bombing of places like Rotterdam, Warsaw and Coventry.

Kai G. wrote:The use of incendiary bombs and level bombers has been explained, moreover there was only ONE Ju87A0, if any, in Spain

Thomas begs to differ. He states there were Ju 87s based in Burgos.

Kai G. wrote:Actually all missions flown by Ju87 in August 1938 missed their bridge targets.

Source please. Surely if a JU87 ws prone to missing bridges in 1937, then why continue to use them for the same thing in 1938?

Kai G. wrote:The fleeing population was not a factor at all in any planning,

How do you know? It was certainly an important factor in Blitzkreig. Perhaps the German military, on seeing the effects on the population in Guernica used it to good effect 2 years later.

Kai G. wrote:if you have other sources (read: sources, i.e. documents from that time, not modern literature), please show them.

There are very few professional historians here who have access to primary documentation or sources. We have to rely on historians providing the primary sources to get our information. The key thing however is not to rely on just one source, but on several.

Kai G. wrote:Oh, btw, please read note 3 for the numbers.

I did, and I checked at least 2 other sources...Hugh Thomas and Michael Alpert for numbers as well. All three give differing exact figures, but not differing by much.

The falsifications by Vinas and Trenkner have been proven, see above. Whether it was a deliberate falsification or one by mistake, I don’t know, hence I put my doubts in brackets and use a question mark.

The first Ju87 A1 reached Spain in late December 1937, the first missions were flown in February (cf. Smith: Stuka, p.16f; ). The Ju87A0, which may was present, was not ready to fly missions in April 1937 as the status report of the Legion does not list it operational (cf. Maier: Guernica, Appendix 3). As a note on H.Thomas sources concerning the Stuka: he can’t remember! He wrote that to Abendroth on May 8 1983 (cf. Abendroth: Guernica, EN 45).
As for the source on the failure of Ju87 attacks on bridges, it's in: BA/MA RL 35/35. The report is also printed in Abendroth: Guernica, EN 55.

As you can see, you don’t need access to archives. Academic literature often has appendices with reprinted sources, also pure source reprints are available (see my notes 6 or 10 e.g.). Access to archives btw is in many countries possible for everyone, although some require announcements and pay. Of course, you need to get yourself out…

How do I know that the fleeing population was not intended? Hm, I have cited various diary entries, reports and evaluations. There is a good chance that I came to my conclusion by reading them and finding not a single piece of evidence.
Name a source if you can. If not, it just remains an unsupported notion, you know.

Kai G. wrote:How do I know that the fleeing population was not intended?

However the results of the bombing would have been carefully studied by the Germans. The fact that civilians block the communication networks and slow troop mouvements down could hardly have been missed by the Luftwaffe high command. Quite a useful by-product of the bombing operation.

..but then again, it is all supposition I suppose. Not speaking any German, but just Spanish, English and French is a slight disadvantage in researching this particular niche of the Spanish Civil War.

Kai G. wrote: Richthofen planned this strike to be an air attack against the Renteria-suburb of Gernica with it’s roads and bridge. This city guarded the central and only road of retreat for the Basques east of Bilbao and 25 battalions were heading for Guernica or were already in position there, like the 18th Loyalists’.

I have liked much your text and I share some of your opinions, though not all. Nevertheless, I must indicate to you an important geographical mistake into your text. Rentería (Guipuzcoa) isn't city close to Guernica (Biscay). Between both cities there is around 100 km. of distance.

Kai is my first name, so you don't have to call me "Mr.". The suburb of Guernica, which included the bridge and which was the target for April 26, was also named Renteria.

iwh,

you may have this notion in mind and since it might fit to your view of the world, you may don't like to question it. However:

iwh wrote:The fact that civilians block the communication networks and slow troop mouvements down could hardly have been missed by the Luftwaffe high command.

First, you need to present evidence that refugees blocked communication networks and hampered troops' movements in case of Guernica before calling it a "fact". Then you need to present evidence that the Luftwaffe evaluated this effect (and regarded it useful).

Kai G. wrote:First, you need to present evidence that refugees blocked communication networks and hampered troops' movements in case of Guernica before calling it a "fact". Then you need to present evidence that the Luftwaffe evaluated this effect (and regarded it useful).

German aircraft bombed towns and villages in the Northern parts of Spain. These were easier to find and their destruction hampered communications. It happened at Durango on 31st March and was closely followed up by the attack on Ochandiano.It seems logical to me that civilians would stream out of these places, thus helping to block the way for retreating troops. Civilians are not going to stay around when fire bombs and high explosive are landing on their heads. If the death toll in Guernica was only in the low hundreds, as is now being claimed, what happened to the civilians who remained alive, in what was basically a town made of wood? Surely they must have left en masse thus adding to the problems for the retreating Basque troops.

Kai G. wrote:After my research, I dare to say you are not able to do this.

You wanted a debate about your research. Let's keep the debate civil please and not resort to sarcastic symbols and comments. Thanks.

As I said earlier, I agree with most of the points made, the only issue I am making is that the Germans were quite happy to see civilian casualties and disruption in what was a purely military objective, something that was taken to a more extreme level by the Germans in 1939-40 and the Allies in the skies over Germany in 1944-45.

Kai G. wrote:First, you need to present evidence that refugees blocked communication networks and hampered troops' movements in case of Guernica before calling it a "fact". Then you need to present evidence that the Luftwaffe evaluated this effect (and regarded it useful).After my research, I dare to say you are not able to do this.

Hi Kai:

I agree with you at this point. As I said you, your work is very good. I don't believe possible Mr. Iwh gets do it. Mr Iwh's disability to confront the historical reality is in this point more intense.

From your work it does not sprout anything that could offer the image of the evil, of the Nazism, of Hitler and all these things. Nothing is in your work remembering something about the absolute justice into the red side. Only there is in your work cold and tidy well information. And this is very hard to Mr. Iwh weak resistence.

I speak from my memory, but the question is more or less this.

The matter of Guernica is important only for the number of victims. In according to someone, the bombardment killed thousands of people (principally children, thousands of children), and according to others they were killed approximately 120 persons. But the debate about numbers is a debate that I advise to nobody.

As you said

The Myth of Guernica was employed and exploited by both victims and actor fors various political causes soon after, while hardly anyone looked at the factual reports and records, and it is still alive for that very reason. “The Nationalists won territory, but the enemy had won the war of propaganda with Guernica”

Alpi wrote:The matter of Guernica is important only for the number of victims. In according to someone, the bombardment killed thousands of people (principally children, thousands of children),

According to who? Journalists of the time? Well, that is a possibility, as the raid provided a goldmine of propaganda to the Republicans and an embarrassment to the Nationalists. Or post Civil War historians? I doubt it. The number tends to vary between 1,600 to 200, according to Thomas.

Alpi wrote:But the debate about numbers is a debate that I advise to nobody.

If Guernica is important only in relation to the number of victims, then why a short while later, do you suggest we don't debate it?